GOProud at CPAC creates controversy, calls for boycotts

posted at 1:30 pm on December 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The Conservative Political Action Conference is the pinnacle of events for conservative activists.  Held annually in Washington DC in the winter, it aggregates hundreds of conservative activist groups and thousands of attendees, and attracts high-profile figures on the Right, including national and regional politicians hoping to tap CPAC’s energy.  Not all of these groups agree with each other on all issues, and sometimes the close quarters results in some entertaining debates (and sometimes just silly displays, such as the porpoise that followed Mitt Romney throughout the Omni in 2007).  But the inclusion of a conservative coalition of gays, GOProud, has created calls for the ACU and CPAC to cut off GOProud’s sponsorship and attendance at CPAC as well as a few rumblings of a boycott among social conservatives.

This is justified in e-mails circulating among conservatives based on allegations that GOProud is a crypto-Leftist group seeking to infiltrate and weaken conservative policies.  However, that doesn’t match up with the group’s stated legislative priorities, which do not go any further than most of the conservative and libertarian groups that regularly attend and sponsor the conference.  I’ll post their list in its entirety:

1 – TAX REFORM – Death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity, and other changes to the tax code that will provide equity for gays and lesbians; cut in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.

2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Free market healthcare reform. Legislation that will allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.

3 – SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM – Bringing basic fairness to the Social Security system through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts.

4 – DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL REPEAL – Repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

5 – HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING – Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unneccessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.

6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.

7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.

8 – ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship in the gay community.

9 – REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES – A package of urban related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice.

10 – DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY – Protecting 2nd amendment rights.

Social conservatives will have a problem with numbers 4 and possibly 7, although the latter relates to a Constitutional amendment making marriage a federal issue, which conservatives should be wary of doing anyway.  Otherwise, their platform could be just as easily adopted at a Tea Party as at GOProud, and would receive rousing support from the floor at CPAC coming from any other entity.  It’s not a far-Left or crypto-Left agenda at all, but a good, solid recitation of conservative principles and fiscal responsibility.

In other words, we have at least an 80% agreement on the major issues facing our country between mainstream conservatives and this sponsor of CPAC.  That seems like a pretty good fit.  I asked Lisa De Pasquale, the director of CPAC, for a response to the controversy:

CPAC is a coalition of nearly 100 conservative groups, some of which may disagree with one another on a handful of issues.  But, at the end of the day, we all agree on core conservative principles.  As you may know, GOProud was founded by a former member of the Log Cabin Republicans who left the group because he thought they were doing a disservice to their constituency by not adhering to conservative and Republican principles.  GOProud’s website states “GOProud is committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy. GOProud promotes our traditional conservative agenda by influencing politics and policy at the federal level.”

After talking with their leadership and reviewing their website, I am satisfied that they do not represent a “radical leftist agenda,” as some have stated, and should not be rejected as a CPAC cosponsor.

This seems like a wise decision, and this controversy challenges conservatives as to whether they’re interested in a governing coalition based on fundamental conservative principles or a mission of absolute purity on the Right.  If we want to win control of the House in 2010, we need to focus on key principles that address the nation’s crises and the main points of disillusion with Democrats.  That should set our focus on those points on which Democrats overreached — namely, spending, government intrusion, spiraling deficits, and fiscal insanity.  We need to show that we can, if trusted with power again, govern properly and responsibly, and even more that we understand that the priorities are the fiscal issues and not the social issues that divide more than they unite.

GOProud’s priorities are fundamentally in line with that effort.  We should not allow a purity campaign to push away natural allies on the fiscal crisis that grips our country, and the opportunity we have to correct it in 2010.

Update: I misspelled Lisa’s name; I’ve corrected it above. My apologies.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Andy in Agoura Hills,

Well Buckley left the CIA to found the National Review. If it wasn’t funded by the CIA officially like Irving Kristol’s, which was in the same time period, it still had a instutional bent towards imperialism and was very pro-secret police.

Buckley hated Ayn Rand, Libertarians, Murray Rothbard, and especially the John Birch Society. He despised all anti-government organizations so his magazine is not to be trusted.

Spathi on December 16, 2009 at 9:05 PM

JBS is and was an anti-semitic and racist organization. Yes or no, do you deny that?

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 8:45 PM

i acknowledge the documented fact that that is not true and expect you to demonstrate your claim. stalinist.

eh on December 16, 2009 at 9:09 PM

You’re the one that wrote the line, I just commented on it. Why must one put aside religious beliefs when arguing this issue? I have never understood what reasoning requires one deny an important fact that goes into the argument. No one denies a portion of the population anything other than the “universal acceptance” of deviant behavior that every recognized faith in the world does not recognize as “normal”. I cannot marry someone of the same sex and gay people are not prohibited from marrying people of the opposite sex. Therefore, no one is prohibited from anything others people are “allowed” to do. Further, gay individuals are not forbidden to live together, work where they choose (with legal protection), receive domestic partner benefits in may sectors of society, etc. So this “civil rights” issue is bogus. You can call a cat a dog, but it’s still a cat. You can try and force people into thinking that “gay marriage” and “marriage” are the same thing, but they are not. Sorry.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 8:57 PM

Your entire arguement is invalid because you defined gay relations as “deviant”. If it was “deviant behavior”, then why does it occur in all species of vertebrate and other types of animals? Why do some species of fish start as males in life then form into female? Is it because they “chose” to do this? No. It is part of their nature. Homosexuality is part of nature. It is not a “choice”.

And you are advocating a separate but equal approach, which history has proven as an inadequate solution. Imagine being in the shoes of a gay person. You love someone. But someone, based on a debatable line in their scriptures, wants your government to deny you the same marriage heterosexuals can enter into. This is inherently wrong.

gopftw on December 16, 2009 at 9:11 PM

I could live with the repeal of DADT if it meant destroying the democrats.

csdeven on December 16, 2009 at 9:11 PM

You think. Uh huh. His magazine may have been funded. You’re a schmuck. Do you have any facts to state or are you just gonna pull random statements out of your ass?

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 8:54 PM

why don’t you support your erroneous claim that the jbs is “racist” and “antisemitic” before you go around demonstrating “facts” of others, stalinist?

you do realize that, for the sake of your association of choice with stalinists, you have the blood of millions on your hands, don’t you?

eh on December 16, 2009 at 9:12 PM

CPAC has allowed the ACLU to have a booth, albeit a small one in the far back corner of the room. There was a CAIR booth one year, I believe. Exodus International was there.
So “odd” groups have been there before.

Lothar on December 16, 2009 at 9:16 PM

where’s the stalinist lgf troll?
\

eh on December 16, 2009 at 9:17 PM

There isn’t anything on earth that could make me give a rat’s ass about what people do with their private parts. Or their private lives. Marry your cat, your toaster, whatever. What the hell do I care ? The sort of religious (or “social” if you prefer) zealotry that makes people want to dictate how others live their lives is exactly what we are fighting so hard against. I won’t tolerate it in my enemies or my friends. The last thing we need is more busybody interference in our daily lives, however off beat they may be.

johngalt on December 16, 2009 at 9:23 PM

Well Buckley left the CIA to found the National Review. If it wasn’t funded by the CIA officially like Irving Kristol’s, which was in the same time period, it still had a instutional bent towards imperialism and was very pro-secret police.

Buckley hated Ayn Rand, Libertarians, Murray Rothbard, and especially the John Birch Society. He despised all anti-government organizations so his magazine is not to be trusted.

Spathi on December 16, 2009 at 9:05 PM

Anyone that gets their information and links to Lew Rockwell, a well-known bigot, is not to be trusted. In fact, that person is a rightwing nutjob.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 9:27 PM

Your entire arguement is invalid because you defined gay relations as “deviant”. If it was “deviant behavior”, then why does it occur in all species of vertebrate and other types of animals? Why do some species of fish start as males in life then form into female? Is it because they “chose” to do this? No. It is part of their nature. Homosexuality is part of nature. It is not a “choice”.

And you are advocating a separate but equal approach, which history has proven as an inadequate solution. Imagine being in the shoes of a gay person. You love someone. But someone, based on a debatable line in their scriptures, wants your government to deny you the same marriage heterosexuals can enter into. This is inherently wrong.

gopftw on December 16, 2009 at 9:11 PM

lots of behaviors take place in many species. It doesn’t make the behavior, by definition, the norm. Deviant means outside the normal limits. Where did I say homosexuality was a choice? If you want me to take religion out of the equation,then you take emotionality out of the equation, i.e. “walk in the shoes of a gay person”. I don’t advocate “separate but equal” at all. I advocate not redefining something to assuage the feelings of small segment of the population. People are sitting in prison right now in the USA because of whom they have chosen to love. THAT is persecution. If someone chooses to love two other people, shouldn’t they be allowed to marry? Well, in the US polygamy is ILLEGAL. I think before we redefine marriage for the gay population, we include polygamy in that definition as well. Otherwise, we are denying another entire segment of society the rights others have. You may like to distill the issue down to “a few debatable lines in thier scripture” because by denying that fact, you think you retain some validity in your argument, but the only people debating the validity of those lines are the people seeking to redefine a societal norm to meet their emotional needs.

If the point is equal treatment under the laws for same sex couples, why is civil union that confers all the legal benefits of marriage upon the couple without the redefinition not enough? Do you beleive that the redefinition of marriage is the only way a same sex couple will ever be able to truly be in a committed relationship?

I do not equate “separate but equal” because gay relationships are not “equal” they are different. The dynamics are different, the mechanics are different and the purpose is different than the reasoning behind marriage in the first place.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 9:27 PM

i acknowledge the documented fact that that is not true and expect you to demonstrate your claim. stalinist.

eh on December 16, 2009 at 9:09 PM

You are in denial. Seek therapy.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 9:28 PM

why don’t you support your erroneous claim that the jbs is “racist” and “antisemitic” before you go around demonstrating “facts” of others, stalinist?

you do realize that, for the sake of your association of choice with stalinists, you have the blood of millions on your hands, don’t you?

eh on December 16, 2009 at 9:12 PM

Ooooh, such a witty reposte. But you are still an errant ignoramus. If you think that distributing, quite profusely, the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by the Birchers is not anti-semitic, you have your head up your ass. Even Farrakhan used that book as a basis for spewing his vile anti-Jewish bullsh!t. Gary Allen was a white supremacist. And you, who defend the Birchers, are an accomplice to Farrakhan. How does it feel to be a Jew-hating basturd?

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 9:42 PM

You know, I’ve always thought highly of Sarah Palin, even if she wasn’t the brightest bulb, but because she had good morals and common sense. I am very disappointed to read that she apparently reads their magazine. I’ll have to rethink my support of her. But in the big picture, I’d take Sarah Palin over the Marxist any day.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 8:51 PM

I didn’t vote for Obama, even though I have been accused of it, I voted for McCain.

Amazing – I thought the paleo-Conservatives in The Constitutional Party would like Sarah Palin – but I was wrong. Even Chuck Baldwin believes she is a neo-con according to their website. I was surprised.

AprilOrit on December 16, 2009 at 9:42 PM

i acknowledge the documented fact that that is not true and expect you to demonstrate your claim. stalinist.

eh on December 16, 2009 at 9:09 PM

You did not just call Andy a stalinist – did you??

This is veiled anti-semitism, you should be ashamed.

AprilOrit on December 16, 2009 at 9:45 PM

lots of behaviors take place in many species. It doesn’t make the behavior, by definition, the norm. Deviant means outside the normal limits. Where did I say homosexuality was a choice? If you want me to take religion out of the equation,then you take emotionality out of the equation, i.e. “walk in the shoes of a gay person”. I don’t advocate “separate but equal” at all. I advocate not redefining something to assuage the feelings of small segment of the population. People are sitting in prison right now in the USA because of whom they have chosen to love. THAT is persecution. If someone chooses to love two other people, shouldn’t they be allowed to marry? Well, in the US polygamy is ILLEGAL. I think before we redefine marriage for the gay population, we include polygamy in that definition as well. Otherwise, we are denying another entire segment of society the rights others have. You may like to distill the issue down to “a few debatable lines in thier scripture” because by denying that fact, you think you retain some validity in your argument, but the only people debating the validity of those lines are the people seeking to redefine a societal norm to meet their emotional needs.

If the point is equal treatment under the laws for same sex couples, why is civil union that confers all the legal benefits of marriage upon the couple without the redefinition not enough? Do you beleive that the redefinition of marriage is the only way a same sex couple will ever be able to truly be in a committed relationship?

I do not equate “separate but equal” because gay relationships are not “equal” they are different. The dynamics are different, the mechanics are different and the purpose is different than the reasoning behind marriage in the first place.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 9:27 PM

Your definition of normal seems to be what the majority does. There really is no normality, as everyone has a distinct personality, therefore rendering everyone different in their own way.

I do not have “emotionality” in the argument. Sympathy and seeing things from the point of view of the minority is important in understanding the issue from both sides.

This is exactly the problem. You believe it will lead to polygamy, which is entirely ludicrous. We know there are different human sexualities. Loving more than one person is not a sexual orientation like heterosexuality and homosexuality. You can not be in a committed relationship with 2 people, that just does not work and we all know that. Being in a committed relationship with one person is what marriage is. And the definition of marriage should not discriminate on the basis of the two partners’ genders. Equality in marriage is important to avoid being looked down as a second-class citizen. We both know “marriage” is the preferred word to “civil union”. If the sanctity of marriage is held together by the fact that gay couples are excluded, then it is a fallacy to begin with.

The “purpose” of marriage? To love and support one another? To begin a family? How are gay couples different?! Please go up to a gay family and tell them they are different and should be treated different. See what they say. Your argument amounts to xenophobic garbage. If you believe the “purpose” of marriage is to procreate, then all marriages between older people and sterile people should be illegal as well. This is simply infuriating that the majority is looking upon the minority with the view of “here you can have the same rights, but not the same name. That is reserved for us.”

I realize I will not change your viewpoint and you will not change mine but we both can not deny the fact that society is moving towards acceptance and inclusion of homosexuals and gay marriage. Look at younger votes. Look at the states and more recently, DC, that has legalized gay marriage. Has society been toppled in these states due to this? The real opponent to “traditional” marriage is the 50% divorce rate.

gopftw on December 16, 2009 at 9:50 PM

To all you super-duper social cons…I love being flogged in public. Just don’t forget to put the ball gag in my mouth…mmmmkay?

I still love ya! :-)

SouthernGent on December 16, 2009 at 9:55 PM

To all you super-duper social cons…I love being flogged in public. Just don’t forget to put the ball gag in my mouth…mmmmkay?

I still love ya! :-)

SouthernGent on December 16, 2009 at 9:55 PM

Now that’s funny…lol!

AprilOrit on December 16, 2009 at 9:59 PM

This is veiled anti-semitism, you should be ashamed.

AprilOrit on December 16, 2009 at 9:45 PM

you’re not serious, are you?

i missed the sarc tag.

andy, in the course of making a claim, sourced his claim to chip berlet, who is a stalinist. not a jew but a stalinist.

i’m not aware that progressives have entered that one into their english to rightwing-’code’-which-only-progressives-can-hear dictionaries. it would be a useful in that it would make it so no one can have a rational public discussion of the worst crimes of the soviet empire without being called an antisemite.

but then i’m not sure whether you’re being sarcastic or not. i seem to remember taking your side in many arguments here. i would never have expected you could be that full of sh!t.

eh on December 16, 2009 at 10:04 PM

dieudonne on December 16, 2009 at 4:11 PM

Truthfully, it’s language that doesn’t get hurled at me much at all — mostly in jest by friends. And I do hear about its use by people commiting crimes against gays — I think the crimes are awful, but the words are just that – words. Actions are what counts — that’s where Devante comes in — he tried to swing a club at me one night when he saw me hugging a friend (who happens to be straight) ‘goodnight’ — I intercepted the swing with my hand, grabbed the club and whacked his calf out from under him — no physical damage was done to him, but the whole thing happened in front of an undercover cop who was having a coffee break in his car – LOL! So Devante got floored and booked the same night.

D2Boston on December 16, 2009 at 10:07 PM

gopftw on December 16, 2009 at 9:50 PM

Exactly. The country is becoming more pro-gay-rights. It’s also become more pro-life. The GOP was founded because of opposition to slavery. It should now fight for all people’s rights, regardless of race, creed, sexuality or development stage.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on December 16, 2009 at 10:13 PM

You are in denial. Seek therapy.

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 9:28 PM

i didn’t read in that any effort to support your claim that the jbs is “racist” or “antisemitic”. care to take a shot at it?

oh, wait…maybe this is it:

Ooooh, such a witty reposte. But you are still an errant ignoramus. If you think that distributing, quite profusely, the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by the Birchers is not anti-semitic, you have your head up your ass. Even Farrakhan used that book as a basis for spewing his vile anti-Jewish bullsh!t. Gary Allen was a white supremacist. And you, who defend the Birchers, are an accomplice to Farrakhan. How does it feel to be a Jew-hating basturd?

Andy in Agoura Hills on December 16, 2009 at 9:42 PM

farrahkan is a white supremacist?

eh on December 16, 2009 at 10:14 PM

I wonder what the people here would say if groups wanted conservative orgs that supported repealing drug laws banned? Certainly that’s not mainstream conservatism and would, unlike two guys nailing each other, concern other people as high people are a burden on society.

Gays are no different than men and women who don’t want to get married or any other ADULT who decides to live their lives contrary to Judeo-Christian concepts of sexual morality.You may disagree with them but it doesn’t mean they’re not conservative, they just aren’t Christian. The right isn’t a Christian movement.

????? If you think homosexual relationships harm no one, you need to talk to some children of homosexual parents. Much like children of divorce, children of parents in homosexual relationships aren’t always unharmed by that decision. Sorry if you don’t care to see that engaging in certain behaviors has ripple effects within society.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 6:13 PM

I do know kids raised by gays and kids whose parents got divorced. They are no more likely to be harmed than the children of straights or women who stay with a guy that slaps them around. The idea that gays are bad for socieety is communist propaganda that you can look up and see was created by Marxists. What you just said is no different than what Castro has. So who’s really on the right here?

Rob Taylor on December 16, 2009 at 10:17 PM

you’re not serious, are you?

i missed the sarc tag.

andy, in the course of making a claim, sourced his claim to chip berlet, who is a stalinist. not a jew but a stalinist.

i’m not aware that progressives have entered that one into their english to rightwing-’code’-which-only-progressives-can-hear dictionaries. it would be a useful in that it would make it so no one can have a rational public discussion of the worst crimes of the soviet empire without being called an antisemite.

but then i’m not sure whether you’re being sarcastic or not. i seem to remember taking your side in many arguments here. i would never have expected you could be that full of sh!t.

eh on December 16, 2009 at 10:04 PM

I am a NY jew – in my neck of the woods it was very common – if one was anti-semetic – to call jews Stalinists.

So very common dring my Nana’s time.

I just have no use for the JBS on so many levels, they are God-awful.

AprilOrit on December 16, 2009 at 10:20 PM

????? If you think homosexual relationships harm no one, you need to talk to some children of homosexual parents. Much like children of divorce, children of parents in homosexual relationships aren’t always unharmed by that decision. Sorry if you don’t care to see that engaging in certain behaviors has ripple effects within society.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 6:13 PM

So, following your logic, we should take children away from nearly all parents. After all, the children of some parents aren’t unharmed by the choices and behavior of the parents.

Straight couples can damage a kid just as easily as a gay couple could. So, what level of government intervention are you suggesting is appropriate for straight couples with kids? If we are going to have equality under the law, that same level of intervention should apply to gay parents. No more, no less.

Keith_Indy on December 16, 2009 at 10:24 PM

AprilOrit on December 16, 2009 at 10:20 PM

sure. whatever.

the reason why the jbs are marginal and should be marginal is that their conspiracy theory understanding of the world is risible and embarrassing.

the claim that they are racist or antisemitic is a lie.

just disagreeing with someone doesn’t make every abuse you could think to pile on them permissible.

eh on December 16, 2009 at 10:29 PM

Your definition of normal seems to be what the majority does. There really is no normality, as everyone has a distinct personality, therefore rendering everyone different in their own way.

I do not have “emotionality” in the argument. Sympathy and seeing things from the point of view of the minority is important in understanding the issue from both sides.

This is exactly the problem. You believe it will lead to polygamy, which is entirely ludicrous. We know there are different human sexualities. Loving more than one person is not a sexual orientation like heterosexuality and homosexuality. You can not be in a committed relationship with 2 people, that just does not work and we all know that. Being in a committed relationship with one person is what marriage is. And the definition of marriage should not discriminate on the basis of the two partners’ genders. Equality in marriage is important to avoid being looked down as a second-class citizen. We both know “marriage” is the preferred word to “civil union”. If the sanctity of marriage is held together by the fact that gay couples are excluded, then it is a fallacy to begin with.

The “purpose” of marriage? To love and support one another? To begin a family? How are gay couples different?! Please go up to a gay family and tell them they are different and should be treated different. See what they say. Your argument amounts to xenophobic garbage. If you believe the “purpose” of marriage is to procreate, then all marriages between older people and sterile people should be illegal as well. This is simply infuriating that the majority is looking upon the minority with the view of “here you can have the same rights, but not the same name. That is reserved for us.”

I realize I will not change your viewpoint and you will not change mine but we both can not deny the fact that society is moving towards acceptance and inclusion of homosexuals and gay marriage. Look at younger votes. Look at the states and more recently, DC, that has legalized gay marriage. Has society been toppled in these states due to this? The real opponent to “traditional” marriage is the 50% divorce rate.

gopftw on December 16, 2009 at 9:50 PM

How can redefining marriage for one segment of the population NOT lead to redefining marriage for another segment of the population? Let’s take an example, handicapped people do not choose to be handicapped. We want them to feel included, so let’s redefine the word “stairs” to include “ramps” so everyone takes stairs and handicapped people will no longer be different because they use “ramps” instead of “stairs”. Did the change of the definition of “stairs” somehow make ramps, stairs? Nope, and redefining marriage to mean same sex couples doesn’t make the relationship any more equal to traditional marriage. I don’t think remarriages are equal to first marriages either I’m divorced and remarried and I do not equate my marriage to that of someone who marries and has kids in the traditional sense and stays together for the kids, etc. My love for my spouse is equal to the love any other straight or gay person feels towards their partner, but the RELATIONSHIP is not equal. Sorry, it’s just not. And no, I don’t think “normal” just means “what the majority wants” because the majority of the world has engaged in slavery at some point in time and that is not normal. Apparently, you beleive that the majority should determine societial norms because you say that our society is moving towards “acceptance and inclusion” of homosexuals. I posit that society is not moving in that direction, but is being pushed in that direction by political correctness and force. I beleive that society is moving towards tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle, but I don’t believe, unless forced through governmental constructs, that society will ever “embrace” the homosexual lifestyle. If you, believe that our society is moving to a place where parents are overjoyed at the revelation that their child is gay will ever arrive, then you could be right, but in my experience, I have never met a parent who did not feel sadness, disappointment, confusion, etc., when that fact comes to light and I do not believe that forcing society to “embrace” the homosexual lifestyle through artificial constructs of redefining societal traditions is ging to change that.

You are right, you won’t change my viewpoint and I have no desire to change yours. I am merely stating my beliefs and no amount of calling me names or belittling my faith will change those beliefs.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 10:35 PM

funny i just thought of an interesting parallel between the word Dance and Marriage. Both words hark back to the beginning of recorded history. Both are found in the bible, both have moral and religious significance. Both words have changed their meaning over time and gained different cultural significances. Yet you don’t see people making the same arguments that modern dance, or even dance between two people isn’t dance. Yet the same entomological history shows that different cultures and times interpret the same words and actions differently.
Would the same people fight as valiantly to defend the field of dance as they do the word marriage. would they accept that times and definitions change and this is a normal event in the life of a civilization?
well that’s my two cents tonight

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2009 at 10:38 PM

So, following your logic, we should take children away from nearly all parents. After all, the children of some parents aren’t unharmed by the choices and behavior of the parents.

Straight couples can damage a kid just as easily as a gay couple could. So, what level of government intervention are you suggesting is appropriate for straight couples with kids? If we are going to have equality under the law, that same level of intervention should apply to gay parents. No more, no less.

Keith_Indy on December 16, 2009 at 10:24 PM

Um, that is not logical at all and I didn’t say or even intimate that in any way shape or form. Being gay is not a reason to remove a child from a home and it’s not the government’s place in any event as far as I am concerned. I never denied that straight parents can damage their child by their behaviors either. My point was to the claim that “consenting adults don’t affect anyone else”. That is not true of anyone as you pointed out.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 10:39 PM

funny i just thought of an interesting parallel between the word Dance and Marriage. Both words hark back to the beginning of recorded history. Both are found in the bible, both have moral and religious significance. Both words have changed their meaning over time and gained different cultural significances. Yet you don’t see people making the same arguments that modern dance, or even dance between two people isn’t dance. Yet the same entomological history shows that different cultures and times interpret the same words and actions differently.
Would the same people fight as valiantly to defend the field of dance as they do the word marriage. would they accept that times and definitions change and this is a normal event in the life of a civilization?
well that’s my two cents tonight

Zekecorlain on December 16, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Actually, does the word Marriage even appear in the bible?

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 10:49 PM

So, following your logic, we should take children away from nearly all parents. After all, the children of some parents aren’t unharmed by the choices and behavior of the parents.

Straight couples can damage a kid just as easily as a gay couple could. So, what level of government intervention are you suggesting is appropriate for straight couples with kids? If we are going to have equality under the law, that same level of intervention should apply to gay parents. No more, no less.

Keith_Indy on December 16, 2009 at 10:24 PM

Indeed. Most of my blogging s about crime and most of the big child abuse cases i cover are straight couples. Most child molesters I cover are men molesting female children. Neither mean heterosexuality can be blamed for abuse and neglect, but by the commenters logic heterosexual men aren’t conservative because he’s heard some anecdotes about them being bad parents.

This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with childish bigotry.

Rob Taylor on December 16, 2009 at 10:51 PM

John Birch Society announces that it will cosponsor CPAC this year

APPLETON, WIS.—December 15, 2009—The John Birch Society announces it is cosponsoring the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2010, to be held in Washington DC, Feb. 18-20.

JBS will have a double booth with half dedicated to offering educational and promotional materials and the other half housing a TV studio that will stream live video from the booth and broadcast onto JBS LibertyNewsNetwork.tv, a website that will feature archived JBS video and live video streams.

I know the YAL will be there to try to win the presidential straw poll for Ron Paul. Having the JBS there is certain to help.

Spathi on December 16, 2009 at 10:57 PM

[snip] … we both can not deny the fact that society is moving towards acceptance and inclusion of homosexuals and gay marriage. [...snip...] The real opponent to “traditional” marriage is the 50% divorce rate.

gopftw on December 16, 2009 at 9:50 PM

The increasing acceptance of homosexuality and divorce is evidence of the disintegration of society, not something constructive.

People unschooled in important things can claim, as you do, that rejection of homosexuality derives from a questionable claim in a religious book. Actually the basic text is not questionable at all, except by ignorant people. Furthermore there are also other good reasons for discouraging homosexuality.

One of those other reasons is that not every kind of society ‘works’, as both history and contemporary experience will thoroughly teach to anybody who cares to pay attention.

Liberal societies are inherently unstable and doomed to fail (the evidence exists in miniature in communities throughout the ‘west’ for any who care to study). The irony is that when homosexuals manage to redefine marriage to gratify their twisted notion of reality, their triumph will be curtailed by the barbarians who will over-run them.

YiZhangZhe on December 16, 2009 at 10:58 PM

(Lisa)

After talking with their leadership and reviewing their website, I am satisfied that they do not represent a “radical leftist agenda,” as some have stated, and should not be rejected as a CPAC cosponsor.

(Ed)

GOProud’s priorities are fundamentally in line with that effort. We should not allow a purity campaign to push away natural allies on the fiscal crisis that grips our country, and the opportunity we have to correct it in 2010.

I agree with both Ed and Lisa on these points.

So lets get united and kick these socialist,lying,corrupt democrats out of office starting with the mid-terms in 2010
and busting Obama’s butt back to Chicago in 2012.

Baxter Greene on December 16, 2009 at 11:03 PM

7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.

If they are going to constitutionalize this, then I also want to know their stance on polygamy.

voxpopuli on December 16, 2009 at 11:08 PM

The idea that gays are bad for socieety is communist propaganda …

Rob Taylor on December 16, 2009 at 10:17 PM

The idea that homosexuality is undesirable has existed far longer than communism, and across all kinds of ideological frameworks.

It might be better to say that it is an already bad society that cannot see anything harmful about homosexuality.

Good societies can, and should, tolerate all sorts of imperfect people, ideas and behaviour because we all have many faults. However any society that redefines right and wrong has only a short future.

YiZhangZhe on December 16, 2009 at 11:11 PM

Indeed. Most of my blogging s about crime and most of the big child abuse cases i cover are straight couples. Most child molesters I cover are men molesting female children. Neither mean heterosexuality can be blamed for abuse and neglect, but by the commenters logic heterosexual men aren’t conservative because he’s heard some anecdotes about them being bad parents.

This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with childish bigotry.

Rob Taylor on December 16, 2009 at 10:51 PM

Sure it is. And see how easy it was to support the poster’s leap of logic, from “two consenting adult’s” behavior can have an affect on others, to ….this is childish bigotry. If you actually read what I posted instead of jumping to predetermined conclusions, you would see how absurd your little barb is.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 11:24 PM

The increasing acceptance of homosexuality and divorce is evidence of the disintegration of society, not something constructive.

People unschooled in important things can claim, as you do, that rejection of homosexuality derives from a questionable claim in a religious book. Actually the basic text is not questionable at all, except by ignorant people. Furthermore there are also other good reasons for discouraging homosexuality.

One of those other reasons is that not every kind of society ‘works’, as both history and contemporary experience will thoroughly teach to anybody who cares to pay attention.

Liberal societies are inherently unstable and doomed to fail (the evidence exists in miniature in communities throughout the ‘west’ for any who care to study). The irony is that when homosexuals manage to redefine marriage to gratify their twisted notion of reality, their triumph will be curtailed by the barbarians who will over-run them.

YiZhangZhe on December 16, 2009 at 10:58 PM

Thanks, you articulate this idea much better than me.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 11:26 PM

If it was “deviant behavior”, then why does it occur in all species of vertebrate and other types of animals?[...snip...] Homosexuality is part of nature. It is not a “choice”.

gopftw on December 16, 2009 at 9:11 PM

Birds are known to deceive, dolphins are known to rape, slugs are known to engage in cannibalism, and cows are known to fart loudly and prolifically in public. These too are all natural behaviours that we rightly discourage in humans.

Every act, by definition, is part of nature. Being natural is not the same as being constructive or morally virtuous.

Homosexuals have just as much ability as anybody else to choose how they act on their desires, and in a civilised society we all have a duty to choose to restrain some of our desires.

YiZhangZhe on December 16, 2009 at 11:39 PM

Please put me down as one who

understand(s) that the priorities are the fiscal issues and not the social issues that divide more than they unite.

This is a fight for America. AMERICA.

redwhiteblue on December 16, 2009 at 11:39 PM

Homosexuals have just as much ability as anybody else to choose how they act on their desires, and in a civilised society we all have a duty to choose to restrain some of our desires.

YiZhangZhe on December 16, 2009 at 11:39 PM

The irony is that when homosexuals manage to redefine marriage to gratify their twisted notion of reality, their triumph will be curtailed by the barbarians who will over-run them.

YiZhangZhe on December 16, 2009 at 10:58 PM

Pure crap. I am loathe to call anyone a troll but you prompt that initial urge in me. All you have are conclusory statements. I’m not particularly sympathetic to the militant gay agenda (not at all in fact), and there are numerous questions regarding the effect on children in gay families, for example, that I want answered. But acting like homosexual conduct is per se the downfall of Western civilization is patently absurd. Do you have any empirical reasoning behind such an assertion or are you just a blowhard?

voxpopuli on December 16, 2009 at 11:43 PM

YAYE! I can spout dogma too!:

The increasing acceptance of YiZhangZhe’s ideology is evidence of the disintegration of society, not something constructive.

People unschooled in important things can claim, as you do, that rejection of YiZhangZhe’s thinking derives from a questionable claim in a religious book. Actually the basic text is not questionable at all, except by ignorant people. Furthermore there are also other good reasons for discouraging YiZhangZhe’s principles.

One of those other reasons is that not every kind of society ‘works’, as both history and contemporary experience will thoroughly teach to anybody who cares to pay attention.

Liberal societies are inherently unstable and doomed to fail (the evidence exists in miniature in communities throughout the ‘west’ for any who care to study). The irony is that when YiZhangZhe manages to redefine marriage to gratify his twisted notion of reality, hix triumph will be curtailed by the barbarians who will over-run him.

Anti-YiZhangZhe on December 16, 2009 at 10:58 PM

You’re what is known in the trade as a “windbag.”

voxpopuli on December 16, 2009 at 11:49 PM

Pure crap. I am loathe to call anyone a troll but you prompt that initial urge in me. All you have are conclusory statements. I’m not particularly sympathetic to the militant gay agenda (not at all in fact), and there are numerous questions regarding the effect on children in gay families, for example, that I want answered. But acting like homosexual conduct is per se the downfall of Western civilization is patently absurd. Do you have any empirical reasoning behind such an assertion or are you just a blowhard?

voxpopuli on December 16, 2009 at 11:43 PM

I don’t think the poster indicated that homosexuality is the downfall of Western Civilization, but if you can find a society in history that embraced homosexuality and as a result was strengthened and flourished as a result, you might have a favorable argument.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 11:52 PM

You’re what is known in the trade as a “windbag.”

voxpopuli on December 16, 2009 at 11:49 PM

Whoa, you sure blew him away with the insightful response. You are known in the trade as a person without an insightful response or valid counterpoint.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 11:54 PM

I don’t think the poster indicated that homosexuality is the downfall of Western Civilization, but if you can find a society in history that embraced homosexuality and as a result was strengthened and flourished as a result, you might have a favorable argument.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 11:52 PM

And I suppose you can name me a single civilzation which embraced homosexuality and perished as a result?

Please make sure you understand what the term “as a result” means?

voxpopuli on December 16, 2009 at 11:55 PM

You’re what is known in the trade as a “windbag.”

voxpopuli on December 16, 2009 at 11:49 PM
Whoa, you sure blew him away with the insightful response. You are known in the trade as a person without an insightful response or valid counterpoint.

ihasurnominashun on December 16, 2009 at 11:54 PM

Can one argue with the gas which expels from the anus of a cow? No one cannot. Just so here.

voxpopuli on December 16, 2009 at 11:56 PM

Your entire arguement is invalid because you defined gay relations as “deviant”. If it was “deviant behavior”, then why does it occur in all species of vertebrate and other types of animals? Why do some species of fish start as males in life then form into female? Is it because they “chose” to do this? No. It is part of their nature. Homosexuality is part of nature. It is not a “choice”.

gopftw on December 16, 2009 at 9:11 PM

So human transsexuals are like some species of fish? Do the fish have surgery? No? Then it isn’t the same. Your argument is so full of fallacious information and assumptions that I don’t know where to begin.

Much is made of “homosexual” behavior in the animal kingdom. Usually it’s one male mounting another. This isn’t gay, it’s dominant male behavior. “Deviant” is that which varies from the norm, which is heterosexuality. Basic Darwin Awards to those who actually engage in reproductive behavior. Anal sex is deviant. Most people don’t do it because the anus was not evolved for intercourse. Come on, you libs love Darwin, don’t you?

Regarding whether or not it’s a choice, sometimes it is a choice – what I refer to as “political lesbians” – women making a statement rejecting all men because of their own bad relationship decisions. Many times they drift back to men because, well, they are really heterosexual. These traitoresses are despised by the “real” lesbians. I know. I’ve seen a lot of it in environments where being gay is “cool.”

I am bemused by this clamoring for the right to marry. Unless the gay world has changed hugely since the 80′s, most gays sneer at the bourgeois middle class values that are essential to stable and responsible childrearing. Monogamy is one of those things, and even AIDS hasn’t changed the way people think. The gay lifestyle as found in places like San Francisco is about excess and dissipation, relentless sampling of new experiences more resembling a college student than a responsible parent.

Oh sure, there are exceptions, like gay couples who are faithful to each other and wish to share children. They are the exceptions, not the rule. The demand for “equal rights” might as well be an appeal to heaven itself, because if you’re gay you cannot reproduce with a same-sex spouse.

I’m entirely in favor of civil unions for those gays/lesbians who want an exclusive and (hopefully) permanent relationship. They should be able to assign spousal rights to their chosen mates, inheritance, all the legal stuff, like next of kin. Teams of two are hardwired into our DNA, so gays who succumb to monogamy are entitled to be left in peace.

Anyone who isn’t satisfied with that should ask himself what his real objective is.

You know, the gays of the 50′s would have been thrilled to have what is available to gays today – an open lifestyle, free from fear and persecution. I just don’t understand wtf is wrong with these whiners.

disa on December 17, 2009 at 12:00 AM

And I suppose you can name me a single civilzation which embraced homosexuality and perished as a result?

Please make sure you understand what the term “as a result” means?

voxpopuli on December 16, 2009 at 11:55 PM

So what you are saying is you cannot name such a civilization so you want to define terms? And answer a question with a question?

So go ahead and prove how stupid I am. Educate me on ancient societies that have benefited and flourished as a result of embracing homosexuality

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 12:01 AM

voxpopuli on December 16, 2009 at 11:43 PM

I didn’t claim that homosexuality will be the downfall of western civilisation. Rather, a civilisation that has already lost sight of right and wrong, that cares more about gratification than about truth, that has lost its understanding and is already in decline will be more accepting of homosexuality.

As for the empirical reasoning … well, open your eyes and look around you! Generally the strongest, most constructive, wholesome, happy families, communities, societies and nations are those that have least to do with the liberal, anything goes, mantra. Its not hard to see.

Then study some history and find out what kind of people and ideas dominated at the inception of great societies and works, and what kind of people and ideas dominated at the collapse or disintegration of the same.

YiZhangZhe on December 17, 2009 at 12:03 AM

Homosexuals have just as much ability as anybody else to choose how they act on their desires, and in a civilised society we all have a duty to choose to restrain some of our desires.

YiZhangZhe on December 16, 2009 at 11:39 PM

So your proposing all homosexuals be held to compulsory abstinence?

When are you guys going to propose the formation of a Virtue Squad that goes around beating immodestly dressed woman and couples engaging in public displays of affection?

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 12:04 AM

So what you are saying is you cannot name such a civilization so you want to define terms? And answer a question with a question?

So go ahead and prove how stupid I am. Educate me on ancient societies that have benefited and flourished as a result of embracing homosexuality

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 12:01 AM

Q.E.D.

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:04 AM

I forgot to add that GOProud is good to go IMHO. Small government people seem to be safe in all flavors.

Can anyone think of a group which supports small government solutions that would actually harm conservatism?

disa on December 17, 2009 at 12:06 AM

I didn’t claim that homosexuality will be the downfall of western civilisation.

LOL. What?:

The increasing acceptance of homosexuality and divorce is evidence of the disintegration of society, not something constructive.

I note you follow up with some equally vacuous blather about how the evidence is all around us — meaning, you have none of your own to offer.

Or — even more of a peach — I need further education. I think anyone reading this thread will understand clearly who harbors the deficiencies, however. LOL

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:07 AM

When are you guys going to propose the formation of a Virtue Squad that goes around beating immodestly dressed woman and couples engaging in public displays of affection?

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 12:04 AM

Yep, here we go again with the old “conservatives-are-controlling-fascists” routine. Liberals are the dangerous ones who make one fearful of answering a business phone with a cheery “Merry Christmas!” in December 2009.

disa on December 17, 2009 at 12:09 AM

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:07 AM

How many gay couples do you know who have had a mongamous relationship for 5 years or more?

disa on December 17, 2009 at 12:10 AM

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:07 AM

Evidence doesn’t precede an event, it is what is left behind afterwards.

YiZhangZhe on December 17, 2009 at 12:11 AM

So your proposing all homosexuals be held to compulsory abstinence?

When are you guys going to propose the formation of a Virtue Squad that goes around beating immodestly dressed woman and couples engaging in public displays of affection?

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 12:04 AM

Again, I didn’t see any one proposing anything. That’s purely your projection or inference. I thought conservatives believed in personal responsibility. Are you saying homosexuals are unable to control their impulses? I know lots of heteros that can control their impulses, why do you think gay people can’t????? That’s pretty judgmental of you. I think gay people have self control, but to each his own.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 12:12 AM

I didn’t claim that homosexuality will be the downfall of western civilisation.
LOL. What?:

The increasing acceptance of homosexuality and divorce is evidence of the disintegration of society

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:07 AM

Don’t you see the difference? He sees the increasing apathy about homosexuality as an effect of the disintegration of society, not the cause of it.

disa on December 17, 2009 at 12:13 AM

So your proposing all homosexuals be held to compulsory abstinence?

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 12:04 AM

No. Are you?

YiZhangZhe on December 17, 2009 at 12:17 AM

Q.E.D.

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:04 AM

Just as I expected. Do you think the latin of “I know you are, but what am I” is a compelling argument, PeeWee?

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 12:17 AM

Yep, here we go again with the old “conservatives-are-controlling-fascists” routine. Liberals are the dangerous ones who make one fearful of answering a business phone with a cheery “Merry Christmas!” in December 2009.

disa on December 17, 2009 at 12:09 AM

Number one, I’m not a liberal.

Secondly, I was addressing YingWangWong and ihasurnominashun and all the other social cons that only believe in individual rights that YHWH would approve of and don’t mind using government as a club against people they disagree with.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 12:17 AM

Those who accept the left’s meme that opposition to the gay agenda is only religious are wrong. There are many other practical reasons for not supporting it.

Connie on December 17, 2009 at 12:18 AM

Those who accept the left’s meme that opposition to the gay agenda is only religious are wrong. There are many other practical reasons for not supporting it.

Connie on December 17, 2009 at 12:18 AM

But it’s so much more fun to denigrate faith for the greater good of acceptance and unity. Ohhhh the irony.

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 12:20 AM

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:07 AM
How many gay couples do you know who have had a mongamous relationship for 5 years or more?

disa on December 17, 2009 at 12:10 AM

I know very few acknowledged homosexuals. However, b/c I am a conservative and run with a conservative cohort, there could be numerous examples of “closeted” individuals. I just don’t know.

PLEASE don’t try to tell me that gays are more promiscuous then straights. All that tells me is that when your hubby says he has to “work late,” you actually believe him. Good luck with that coin toss.

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:20 AM

Secondly, I was addressing YingWangWong and ihasurnominashun and all the other social cons that only believe in individual rights that YHWH would approve of and don’t mind using government as a club against people they disagree with.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 12:17 AM

Ignoring the name calling, I would love for you to point to a single post of mine in which I advocated government enforcement of my viewpoint. TIA

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 12:23 AM

Number one, I’m not a liberal.

Secondly, I was addressing YingWangWong and ihasurnominashun and all the other social cons that only believe in individual rights that YHWH would approve of and don’t mind using government as a club against people they disagree with.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 12:17 AM

You sound like a liberal. Are you sure?

Again, less government is the best solution, and denying the sacrament of marriage to gays is perfectly logical. It has nothing to do with the government, though. 2 men is not marriage, nor is 2 women. End of subject. You want to say you’re married and call your husband your wife or whatever, it’s your business, not mine.

disa on December 17, 2009 at 12:23 AM

Don’t you see the difference? He sees the increasing apathy about homosexuality as an effect of the disintegration of society, not the cause of it.

disa on December 17, 2009 at 12:13 AM

He says these things because he has a community-college-level education at best.

These vague, amorphous notions of causality are part of no Cartesian system of logic that *I* am aware of.

Anyway, what’s your point? It’s an effect and not a cause? Is that it?

Well, brainiacs, if it’s merely an effect, then you don’t need to worry about it. Hello?!?

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:27 AM

Secondly, I was addressing YingWangWong and ihasurnominashun and all the other social cons that only believe in individual rights that YHWH would approve of and don’t mind using government as a club against people they disagree with.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 12:17 AM

Bah. Cf. Freud, “reaction formation.” That tells you all you need to know about these pseduo-intellectuals.

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:29 AM

Bah. Cf. Freud, “reaction formation.” That tells you all you need to know about these pseduo-intellectuals.

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:29 AM

This from someone who failed to answer a straight forward question. All that name calling and no real argument What is that saying..all hat and no cattle?

ihasurnominashun on December 17, 2009 at 12:33 AM

You sound like a liberal. Are you sure?

Again, less government is the best solution, and denying the sacrament of marriage to gays is perfectly logical. It has nothing to do with the government, though. 2 men is not marriage, nor is 2 women. End of subject. You want to say you’re married and call your husband your wife or whatever, it’s your business, not mine.

disa on December 17, 2009 at 12:23 AM

I agree totally, but get the government out of marriage altogether.

There’s nothing sacred about it It’s not a “sacrament”. It’s a civil contract with a bunch of flowery religious symbolism attached to it that is all.

Everybody get’s civil unions, call it marriage if you want to, and STFU.

I’m married by the way; 4 years, 3 kids.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 12:43 AM

The sodomists are not going to be happy until there is a backlash. Nobody likes someone who imposes a religion on others. Keep your religious practices to yourself.

And no, most normal people do not want to hang out with deviants. You really have to be deranged to want to hang out with people who do not like your lifestyle. Unless, of course, it’s for the purpose of growing approval from tolerance.

The GOP should simply tally up how many tea partiers are going to stay out versus how many sex deviants will come in. Even the GOP elite can do math. As far as CPAC goes, you will be stunned at how fast their conservative money train stops if they embrace the ‘proud’ perverts.

This is now the country of tea party. Why do you think they are trying to do the White House crasher thing? If they walk up to most any tea party, they will be politely but firmly told to go away.

platypus on December 17, 2009 at 12:47 AM

I agree, with all of the problems in the country, conservatives should concentrate on fiscal responsibility. I think it was liberals who tried to attach a social agenda to conservatives that would divide our efforts.

HellCat on December 17, 2009 at 12:50 AM

This is now the country of tea party.

Say hi to Ross Perot in a few years once you get that installation at “the Museum of $h!t Nobody Cares About Anymore”.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 12:51 AM

Say hi to Ross Perot in a few years once you get that installation at “the Museum of $h!t Nobody Cares About Anymore”.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 12:51 AM

Obviously, you are not into tea party. Nobody I know is suggesting that a third political party is what tea party should do.

Tea party is, for those of you who cannot or will not read the writing on the wall, the new election control. We will control who gets elected because we are traditional Americans who are committed to a unified front while we remain individuals.

Go back and study this country’s history and maybe you’ll understand why the old political game is over. And Ed can rub his forehead and wonder why he wrote such stupid things as his lead-in to this thread.

Not much different. Only like night versus day.

platypus on December 17, 2009 at 1:16 AM

When are you guys going to propose the formation of a Virtue Squad that goes around beating immodestly dressed woman and couples engaging in public displays of affection?

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 12:04 AM

Santorum would love to lead that squad – hands down.

AprilOrit on December 17, 2009 at 1:38 AM

PLEASE don’t try to tell me that gays are more promiscuous then straights.

I can only speak from personal experience of friends, family and acquaintances. I don’t know everyone in Queer Nation.

disa on December 17, 2009 at 1:52 AM

He says these things because he has a community-college-level education at best

Oh? What high level of education did you attain, that you can’t understand straightforward English?

disa on December 17, 2009 at 1:53 AM

Well, brainiacs, if it’s merely an effect, then you don’t need to worry about it. Hello?!?

voxpopuli on December 17, 2009 at 12:27 AM

Tell that to the carbon fear-mongers. You get higher levels of carbon dioxide following rising temperature. Another fact that your current crowd hasn’t shared with you.

Based on your own logic, CO2 is nothing to worry about.

disa on December 17, 2009 at 1:56 AM

I can only speak from personal experience of friends, family and acquaintances. I don’t know everyone in Queer Nation.

disa on December 17, 2009 at 1:52 AM

And I’ve never met anyone from Douchebagville before. Nice to meet you.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 2:00 AM

I agree totally, but get the government out of marriage altogether.

There’s nothing sacred about it It’s not a “sacrament”. It’s a civil contract with a bunch of flowery religious symbolism attached to it that is all.

Everybody get’s civil unions, call it marriage if you want to, and STFU.

I’m married by the way; 4 years, 3 kids.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 12:43 AM

It IS a sacrament to those who adhere to Christianity. You feel the answer is to eliminate marriage? Excuse me, didn’t you deny being a liberal some posts back?

You are such an effing liar.

disa on December 17, 2009 at 2:02 AM

And I’ve never met anyone from Douchebagville before. Nice to meet you.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 2:00 AM

You can’t be old enough to have children.

disa on December 17, 2009 at 2:03 AM

Tea party is, for those of you who cannot or will not read the writing on the wall, the new election control. We will control who gets elected because we are traditional Americans who are committed to a unified front while we remain individuals.

So nothing much is gonna change. The GOP will still be catering to “traditional values” social-cons at the expense of actual cogent political philosophy, we’ll just get a lot of fife and drum music and 1776esque rhetoric along with it.

The culture wars are net loser for Republicans and conservatives. No one is going to win, we’re just going to keep allowing ourselves to be painted as nutjobs who care more about appeasing our skygod than functioning on reason.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 2:13 AM

You feel the answer is to eliminate marriage? Excuse me,

Not eliminate marriage, but remove government from marriage. Why do you need government approval for your blessed union? Isn’t the J-man’s approval enough?

didn’t you deny being a liberal some posts back?

You are such an effing liar.

If you say so. I just happen to believe in individual liberty and protecting individuals from coercion, governmental and societal.

One of my children is named after Reagan. Beat that.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 2:23 AM

You can’t be old enough to have children.

disa on December 17, 2009 at 2:03 AM

I wish.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 2:25 AM

…and this controversy challenges conservatives as to whether they’re interested in a governing coalition based on fundamental conservative principles or a mission of absolute purity on the Right.

Yeah, it’s an intoxicating fantasy we play with to think we are going to beat the odds, we are going to do what has never been done before, we’re going to “reach across the aisle” and join hands with hardcore lib activists in the gay community and form this giant governing coalition that will just make all of our conservative dreams come true! Democrats and homosexuals will flock to the GOP because of how wonderful we will become for giving up Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and nearly endorsing gay marriage! Well, we won’t really endorse gay marriage, we’ll just look the other way. But hey,, don’t pay attention to all that homosexual appeasement you conservatives,,, look over here at all these tax cuts!!
A RINO by any other name is still a RINO! The homosexual activists are not about protecting our constitution! They are not the friends of conservatives! They will not be appeased by ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell! And it is foolish to think on the one hand, you are going to have a working coalition that supports our constitutional rights, while at the same time a part of that coalition wants to destroy our constitutional rights be seeing that they acquire special rights! Sorry!! We do not need a coalition with the libs! They are not about working with conservatives! They want to destroy conservatives! They are out to change this nation! We do not need homosexual activist on our side! This is the same kind of thing RINO’s do all the time! Seek out support by groups or individuals who are directly at odds with every other thing they stand for!
No thanks!

JellyToast on December 17, 2009 at 7:40 AM

I’m sorry to say it but the religious morons have taken over. Call me “liberal”, cool. I am a registered Republican who votes Republican who happens to believe gay marriage is not going to destroy society and cause fireballs to rain down from the heavens.

No wonder we can’t win elections. It’s either the Jesus Warriors of the Republican Party or the Communists of the Democratic party. Where’s the commonsense party?! I guess its the Libertarian Party. Farewell ignorant morons.

gopftw on December 17, 2009 at 8:19 AM

gopftw on December 17, 2009 at 8:19 AM

Buh bye. Wear your badge proudly. The burden you’ve been made carry, having to subject yourself to the run of the mill human, must be unbearable. I pity you. Why?..WHY? is life so cruel??
Hey!..heres an idea..why don’t you carry a mirror around with you so you can look into it every time you want to have a conversation with someone intelligent?
Just tryin’ to help.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 8:32 AM

Liberal societies are inherently unstable and doomed to fail

YiZhangZhe on December 16, 2009 at 10:58 PM

Well, then we are doomed to fail, since this country was founded on liberal ideals. Sure has taken a long time for us to fail though.

How many gay couples do you know who have had a mongamous relationship for 5 years or more?

disa on December 17, 2009 at 12:10 AM

Actually, all the gay couples that I know (maybe 6 at the most,) have been in a mongamous relationship for more then 5 years.

As opposed to my brother-in-law who is on his 3rd marriage, none of which lasted more then 5 years.

I had the fortune to sit with 2 such gay couples at a Christmas party recently. And gee, you know what, they sounded just like any other married couple.

I really don’t see what all the fear is about.

Keith_Indy on December 17, 2009 at 8:34 AM

The culture wars are net loser for Republicans and conservatives. No one is going to win, we’re just going to keep allowing ourselves to be painted as nutjobs who care more about appeasing our skygod than functioning on reason.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 2:13 AM

You’re just making that crap up imo.
Whats your problem with the opinion of fools “painting us to be nutjobs”..who cares what fools think or want? Your whole “appeasing the skygod” riff is rather patheticly vague imo.
Can you clarify what you mean by that thought pattern?

What are the things you see that are “appeasing the skygod” based?

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 8:43 AM

Well, then we are doomed to fail, since this country was founded on liberal ideals. Sure has taken a long time for us to fail though.

The liberal ideas of the past are not the ideas of “liberals” today. Its apples to oranges.

Actually, all the gay couples that I know (maybe 6 at the most,) have been in a mongamous relationship for more then 5 years.

As opposed to my brother-in-law who is on his 3rd marriage, none of which lasted more then 5 years.

And? What are you trying to imply that means?
First, gays are not married, and in reality, you have no idea what is going on with the intimate details of those peoples lives. Secondly, when your preferences are only shared by 4-5% of the population, the opportunities are limited, as opposed to the idea that your gay couples are somehow intrinsically more..?..moral or something?

I had the fortune to sit with 2 such gay couples at a Christmas party recently. And gee, you know what, they sounded just like any other married couple.

I really don’t see what all the fear is about.

Keith_Indy on December 17, 2009 at 8:34 AM

Why would you be surprised to find that a gay couple was just like any other people?

Serious question..why do you use the word ‘fear’ as being the reason to oppose gay marriage

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 8:56 AM

There’s nothing sacred about it It’s not a “sacrament”. It’s a civil contract with a bunch of flowery religious symbolism attached to it that is all.

Everybody get’s civil unions, call it marriage if you want to, and STFU.

I’m married by the way; 4 years, 3 kids.

SCBradley on December 17, 2009 at 12:43 AM

Well..thats your opinion.
Your opinion does not give you, or anyone else, the right to deny others their right to “flowery religious symbolism”, or to command that “everybody gets civil unions and STFU.”
Yeah…thats the kind of liberal ideals the country was founded on. Good grief.

Itchee Dryback on December 17, 2009 at 9:02 AM

To the intellectually superior “Moderates” and just plain Trolls out there. This country was not founded by Moonies, Muslims, or Mayans. Itchee is spot on. Liberalism at that time had no resemblance to what is called “Liberalism” today. Please peruse the following:

…there are 204 unique individuals in this group of “Founding Fathers.” These are the people who did one or more of the following:

- signed the Declaration of Independence
- signed the Articles of Confederation
- attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
- signed the Constitution of the United States of America
- served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress

The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an “American Founding Father.” But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.

Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204

courtesy adherants.com

kingsjester on December 17, 2009 at 9:15 AM

…Exodus International was there.
So “odd” groups have been there before.

Lothar on December 16, 2009 at 9:16 PM

What’s odd about a charity that helps people find better lives?

jgapinoy on December 17, 2009 at 9:27 AM

…Exodus International was there.
So “odd” groups have been there before.

Lothar on December 16, 2009 at 9:16 PM

What’s odd about a charity that helps people find better lives?

jgapinoy

Hmm that their entire idea is a lie, coupled with the damage it does to the kids psyche when they at first blame themselves for their feelings and think that some how it’s their actions that cause them to be attracted to guys.
What makes it worse is the people at the top of Exodous know full well that none of their ‘patients’ will ever stop being gay, they’ll just have learned to hide it better.

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 9:49 AM

I really don’t see what all the fear is about.

Keith_Indy on December 17, 2009 at 8:34 AM

Wrong word. Deviant is the word that describes what normal people are trying to avoid.

Apologists such as yourself are just liberal leftists and will always make excuses. Your ancestors probably sold indulgences for the Church, back in Luther’s time.

platypus on December 17, 2009 at 9:50 AM

How about 1,2,4,6,7,8 being problems?

1) is for making gay couples equal in tax law to married couples, just step 1 of the radical gay agenda
2) makes us pay for the risky gay lifestyle and raises insurance rates for the 97% of America that isn’t gay.
4) is social experimentation on the military. The military is about the effective implimentation of force, not about making single mothers, homosexuals and others who cause disruption feel equal.
6)Oh yes, this is a priority. Let’s all play global humanitarian on the gay issue, when the issue of mass-starvations and mass murder are out there.
7) So how is it “Conservative” to invent a right to gay marriage? How can someone find that right yet be an actual conservative? Not possible.
8) So we should not just provide affirmative action to women, minorities, muslims, but now gays? How screwed is it to be a straight white Christian male in the US now? Is this a targeted group for repression in the “conservative” movement?

These guys are snakes in the grass, and only a RINO would approve.

Spartacus on December 17, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Why would you be surprised to find that a gay couple was just like any other people?

Serious question..why do you use the word ‘fear’ as being the reason to oppose gay marriage

Itchee Dryback

@Itchee why did you change your so why did you change your qualifications that gays wouldn’t stay together long? Wasn’t it because it was the same straw man argument that you just kicked over? Honestly your all over the place on this one…

Zekecorlain on December 17, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7